The wave nature of a particle is a strange concept however. For example the wave function of an electron is a probability matrix. It exists in this state until it is observed once it is observed it collapses into a particle. This is an actual form of matter and this is what the QM experiments show. Reality does exist in this form. Thus interactions are not sufficient to collapse the wave function. These interactions require an observer. Maybe the word observer is misleading. As it implies an observation... and thus a consciousness... however this has not been proven...

It seems that matter takes the form of different states dependent on what it is that is being measured. Maybe there is only a single entity however like a fractal different sides come out during different observations.... Maybe some form of quantum observer Relativity Thus does the state really change or are we really just looking at one aspect or side of a single thing. The problem is this thing does appear to behave differently in different times and these states are not able to be unified they oppose one another.

Polytrip:
I am having a difficult time following you. Specifically I am not clear on what you mean by an equilibrium? Could you please explain.

The first half of what you said seems to be what supersymetry is saying.

Your last statement I am a bit confused on what you mean. Can you provide a more specific example?

You should check out that link I posted its a bit long (1 hour talk) but it deals with a lot of these issues in a more modern sense. Also bufoman I should correct what I said about The Tao of physics. I liked the book and as far as describing QM it was accurate. I find it misleading to say that mystics have been saying what QM is saying for thousands of years. They may have said things that were similar in a poetic sense. But did they know the 4 fundamental forces? No. Did they know their values. No. In that sense I found the book misleading to someone who may not already have some backround in physics or QM.

The state of the system does appear to act differently in different situations. However I realize that if what I said above is true this may not matter. However what I meant is that It does seem that the states change rather than being different properties of a single entity. The different properties of the states (a wave or a particle) are very different. they behave differently which is why they are classified as different. One can not imagine a particle-wave anymore than a talking-mute. Because they have behaviors which exclude the other. A wave has properties a particle can not have and vis a versa. Thus it is hard to imagine a single entity. I will look into symmetry and the video.... Thanks

Regarding the Tao of Physics: There is a great amount of symmetry b/w the statements. I do not think that we can just completely brush it off as coincidence. By observing nature many eastern mystics have come up with statements that are very closely related to statements from modern QM physics . It has to do with how they view the world. In that sense there world view is as a unified field of energy. This is the view that is starting to emerge from QM. Of course these views are not identical and this is not what the author was saying. However each world view is very similar.

Burnt you may like the book the Quantum Enigma. It really talks about the problem of the observer and discusses various theories. It is a good book of course it is not perfect. I enjoyed it a lot it was one of the first books on QM I read. It gives a lot of background and covers the observer effect in great detail.

^^Heard of the book but haven't check it out. Will look into it.



I see what you mean now. Yea let me know what you think after pondering supersymetry for a while.



Agree its not a coincidence. I think that by having a mystical experience whether induce by psychedelics meditation or brain damage you can end up at the same kind if philosophical conclusion that QM can lead too.

I think my criticism is summed up best by other physicists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...o_of_Physics#cite_note-1



I guess I feel the book downplayed science by saying look the mystics already had it all figured out. Because they didn't and they still don't.

I would like to check out this god particle book. I don't think it has anything to do with god but the name is more of a joke.

Anyway here is god.

[quote=bufoman]The wave nature of a particle is a strange concept however. For example the wave function of an electron is a probability matrix. It exists in this state until it is observed once it is observed it collapses into a particle. This is an actual form of matter and this is what the QM experiments show. Reality does exist in this form. Thus interactions are not sufficient to collapse the wave function. These interactions require an observer. Maybe the word observer is misleading. As it implies an observation... and thus a consciousness... however this has not been proven...

It seems that matter takes the form of different states dependent on what it is that is being measured. Maybe there is only a single entity however like a fractal different sides come out during different observations.... Maybe some form of quantum observer Relativity Thus does the state really change or are we really just looking at one aspect or side of a single thing. The problem is this thing does appear to behave differently in different times and these states are not able to be unified they oppose one another. End quote

Hmm, you describe pretty much what i meant. I added the word equilibrium to mean a form of balance. Balance between the observer and the observed.
John nash (the schizofrenic,paranoïd mathematician from 'a beautifull mind' was the first to discover that every 'game' (chess, chicken, hide and seek, the cold war, world war 2, etc.) knows a situation where the move of one party is the most optimal move in relation to the move of the other party, and vice versa, wich makes it an equilibrium; the so called 'nash-equilibrium'. (meaning that A makes the best possible move according to his situation determined by the move of B, and in hindsight of the move of A, B doesn't have to change his move, they are for each the most optimal move in relation to eachother so they don't have to constantly change their strategy after each step of the other party)
I meant that it seems that something similar is going on between the observer and the observed in that they both seem to alter their position in relation to eachother, as if the situation considering the state of both is a stable optimum (or maybe more an optimal minimum, an optimal state of rest) given their connectedness and thus how they would tend to affect eachoter.